We should not attack Iraq

Mr. Ghoul - i completely agree w/ the quote you posted. I think i’d been trying to say the same thing (in different words) on this forum.
w.r.t. Canada being up shit creek w/out the Americans - i don’t believe that is true. W/out the US, Canadians might have a more powerful military, however i can’t reasonably see that many people wanting to come up here, when there is a perfectly pretty country down south. Also Canada has not made nearly as many enemies as the US. It’s one of those unwritten rules - the only people attack the pacifists are “The Man”. Put it another way, it’s wrong to kick a puppy. Do it downtown sometime and you’ll get taken down (or at least yelled at). Anyone silly enough to come at Canada for whatever reason would have much of the European community on its ass (well, 'cept for the French, of course :-? )

@cystic:

Mr. Ghoul - i completely agree w/ the quote you posted. I think i’d been trying to say the same thing (in different words) on this forum.
w.r.t. Canada being up sh*t creek w/out the Americans - i don’t believe that is true. W/out the US, Canadians might have a more powerful military, however i can’t reasonably see that many people wanting to come up here, when there is a perfectly pretty country down south. Also Canada has not made nearly as many enemies as the US. It’s one of those unwritten rules - the only people attack the pacifists are “The Man”. Put it another way, it’s wrong to kick a puppy. Do it downtown sometime and you’ll get taken down (or at least yelled at). Anyone silly enough to come at Canada for whatever reason would have much of the European community on its ass (well, 'cept for the French, of course :-? )

Canada chooses not to have a strong military right now, plain and simple. It’s got nothing to do with the United States stopping them. It’s pretty sad when you stop to realize that our New York Police has as many officers as Canada’s entire military.

Canada’s coast guard shows up to help in Afghanistan: http://chalkdust.org/stuff/canadian_coast_guard.jpg
… :wink:

yeah, that pic is an old joke. in fact, it might well have been posted on another board here in the forums.
And you’re right - our military is inadequate. I think most people in the country agree. When our military is needed, then we produce heroic numbers of vehicals and soldiers, however our peacetime military is crappy. And why not? We’re not at war, we don’t provoke other nations to war with us, and many of America’s enemies are our trading partners. If America did not exist, and if we had not spent roughly the last 188 years building up an alliance of sorts with them, then we might need a vastly different military. But up until now, if America has defended us militarily, then i’d suggest its a deterrance. Otherwise our relationship with her has made us more of a target - maybe we need to increase our military for this reason?

America was Canada’s enemy until 85 years ago, when the Canadians and Americans fought together in the trenches of France in World War 1.

@Mr:

F_alk, its all good.

…

Nice quote you brought up there, especially the first part reflects my criticism on the US nicely.

For the not working links… sorry for that, looks like that news have been take out of the archive there.

Iraq turned down the UN resalution, what will happen?

@GeZe:

Iraq turned down the UN resalution, what will happen?

Except no.

@yourbuttocks:

@GeZe:

Iraq turned down the UN resalution, what will happen?

Except no.

(Laughing my ass off) :lol: :lol:

Yanny:
You asked, “Ever read the Constitution?” Yes, now the question is, “Ever heard of expressed and implied powers?” Under implied powers (which are based on expressed powers) the president may declare war without the consent of Congress. Reagan used this same power, Congress sued, and the courts ruled in Reagan’s favor. The President may declare war, but after 60 days he has to get Congress’ consent. So he doesn’t have unlimited power. That I would object to. Quite frankly, I’m suprised President Bush didn’t use that power. I wanted him to, but he thought it out a little better than I did. He’s given Iraq many chances, and their last one is coming up. Now they have no excuse. They’ve been told, and if Iraq does not comply, the responsibility lies with them.

@dIfrenT:

Yanny:
You asked, “Ever read the Constitution?” Yes, now the question is, “Ever heard of expressed and implied powers?” Under implied powers (which are based on expressed powers) the president may declare war without the consent of Congress. Reagan used this same power, Congress sued, and the courts ruled in Reagan’s favor. The President may declare war, but after 60 days he has to get Congress’ consent. So he doesn’t have unlimited power. That I would object to. Quite frankly, I’m suprised President Bush didn’t use that power. I wanted him to, but he thought it out a little better than I did. He’s given Iraq many chances, and their last one is coming up. Now they have no excuse. They’ve been told, and if Iraq does not comply, the responsibility lies with them.

But dIfrentT,
You just don’t understand. The liberals want to keep giving Saddam more chances to comply, regardless of the fact that he’s developing more weapons as he toys around with us. God help us if we would’ve had a Democrat in office during this “war on terror.” In fact, I bet you there wouldn’t even be a “war on terror,” had Gore been elected.

@yourbuttocks:

@GeZe:

Iraq turned down the UN resalution, what will happen?

Except no.

they had when I posted this

@Deviant:Scripter:

@dIfrenT:

Yanny:
You asked, “Ever read the Constitution?” Yes, now the question is, “Ever heard of expressed and implied powers?” Under implied powers (which are based on expressed powers) the president may declare war without the consent of Congress. Reagan used this same power, Congress sued, and the courts ruled in Reagan’s favor. The President may declare war, but after 60 days he has to get Congress’ consent. So he doesn’t have unlimited power. That I would object to. Quite frankly, I’m suprised President Bush didn’t use that power. I wanted him to, but he thought it out a little better than I did. He’s given Iraq many chances, and their last one is coming up. Now they have no excuse. They’ve been told, and if Iraq does not comply, the responsibility lies with them.

But dIfrentT,
You just don’t understand. The liberals want to keep giving Saddam more chances to comply, regardless of the fact that he’s developing more weapons as he toys around with us. God help us if we would’ve had a Democrat in office during this “war on terror.” In fact, I bet you there wouldn’t even be a “war on terror,” had Gore been elected.

the question is: “would there be a need for a war on terror had Gore been elected?”
i’m being semi-facetious, but i have little doubt that GWB is an antagonizer and does little to promote world peace.

George W. B. is more of a responder. Consider it on a way WAY smaller scale.

You have a family. There’s an arsonist wreaking havock two states away. Are you concerned? Not really. Sure you feel sorry for those who it’s happening to, and you might want to do something for them. The arsonist torches your home. Suddenly it’s personal and you need to react.

That’s where I see George W. B. The time for diplomacy is nearly gone. The true antagonists are not responding. They need to know that we’re not going to be played with. The attack on America was (for lack of words to truly describe it) completely unnecessary!

As for Al Gore. That would need a completely different topic. He doesn’t disgust me as much as Clinton did (and still does for that matter), but he’s not too far behind.

@cystic:

@Deviant:Scripter:

@dIfrenT:

Yanny:
You asked, “Ever read the Constitution?” Yes, now the question is, “Ever heard of expressed and implied powers?” Under implied powers (which are based on expressed powers) the president may declare war without the consent of Congress. Reagan used this same power, Congress sued, and the courts ruled in Reagan’s favor. The President may declare war, but after 60 days he has to get Congress’ consent. So he doesn’t have unlimited power. That I would object to. Quite frankly, I’m suprised President Bush didn’t use that power. I wanted him to, but he thought it out a little better than I did. He’s given Iraq many chances, and their last one is coming up. Now they have no excuse. They’ve been told, and if Iraq does not comply, the responsibility lies with them.

But dIfrentT,
You just don’t understand. The liberals want to keep giving Saddam more chances to comply, regardless of the fact that he’s developing more weapons as he toys around with us. God help us if we would’ve had a Democrat in office during this “war on terror.” In fact, I bet you there wouldn’t even be a “war on terror,” had Gore been elected.

the question is: “would there be a need for a war on terror had Gore been elected?”
i’m being semi-facetious, but i have little doubt that GWB is an antagonizer and does little to promote world peace.

Oh, how could I have been so naive?
I couple months in office surely caused 9/11… :roll:

The more realistic theory, however, is that the terrorists knew they could get away with it, since they had been doing so during Clinton’s term in office. Why not test out the new president?

The attack on America was (for lack of words to truly describe it) completely unnecessary!

I would choose unprovoked and unjust. It was a complete back-track for their cause. There’s other ways to get your point across… :evil:

@Deviant:Scripter:

@cystic:

@Deviant:Scripter:

@dIfrenT:

Yanny:
You asked, “Ever read the Constitution?” Yes, now the question is, “Ever heard of expressed and implied powers?” Under implied powers (which are based on expressed powers) the president may declare war without the consent of Congress. Reagan used this same power, Congress sued, and the courts ruled in Reagan’s favor. The President may declare war, but after 60 days he has to get Congress’ consent. So he doesn’t have unlimited power. That I would object to. Quite frankly, I’m suprised President Bush didn’t use that power. I wanted him to, but he thought it out a little better than I did. He’s given Iraq many chances, and their last one is coming up. Now they have no excuse. They’ve been told, and if Iraq does not comply, the responsibility lies with them.

But dIfrentT,
You just don’t understand. The liberals want to keep giving Saddam more chances to comply, regardless of the fact that he’s developing more weapons as he toys around with us. God help us if we would’ve had a Democrat in office during this “war on terror.” In fact, I bet you there wouldn’t even be a “war on terror,” had Gore been elected.

the question is: “would there be a need for a war on terror had Gore been elected?”
i’m being semi-facetious, but i have little doubt that GWB is an antagonizer and does little to promote world peace.

Oh, how could I have been so naive?
I couple months in office surely caused 9/11… :roll:

The more realistic theory, however, is that the terrorists knew they could get away with it, since they had been doing so during Clinton’s term in office. Why not test out the new president?

What?
1)Nothing like 9/11 happened during Clinton’s tenure.
2)“get away with it”? Clinton bombed 4 countries over a 6 month time-period. imagine if Clinton went medieval on someone’s ass.

@Deviant:Scripter:

Oh, how could I have been so naive?
I couple months in office surely caused 9/11… :roll:

The more realistic theory, however, is that the terrorists knew they could get away with it, since they had been doing so during Clinton’s term in office. Why not test out the new president?

a couple of months can be enough time to light any fire…

The attack on America was (for lack of words to truly describe it) completely unnecessary!

I would choose unprovoked and unjust. It was a complete back-track for their cause. There’s other ways to get your point across… :evil:

unjust… yes
unprovoked?? no
but you are right with your later sentences

once again i’m agreeing w/ F_alk.
Wow, this may be a trend as long as we do not discuss religion.

@GeZe:

@yourbuttocks:

@GeZe:

Iraq turned down the UN resalution, what will happen?

Except no.

they had when I posted this

Except no.

They said they were studying it, and considering their response.

All the Arab states said that they were sure Sadam would accept it